| 1 |
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 12:08 -0500, Brian D. Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > > Some of us think we can't start now, others think we can. I was under the |
| 5 |
> > > impression from ferringb that we could. |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > BDEPEND should be fine to start now depending on faith. |
| 9 |
> Not after having it rolled into the tree, _yet_. First email pretty |
| 10 |
> much stated I was just after seeing if it was tenuable beyond just the |
| 11 |
> portage crews views on it :) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Basically, I was attempting to get feedback on issues where this |
| 14 |
> wouldn't be quiet enough, an example of which is ncurses. |
| 15 |
> (my understanding of this, thanks to flameeyes for clueing me in) |
| 16 |
> ncurses built/installed in chost==ctarget, BDEPEND= |
| 17 |
> ncurses built/installed in chost!=ctarget, BDEPEND=ncurses |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Well, I can see that it can help towards that end. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> So... need to expose either ctarget as some type of flag for bdepend, |
| 23 |
> or use flag type hack (native when chost=ctarget, -native when |
| 24 |
> evaluating a use conditional in a domain where chost!=ctarget). |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Thoughts regarding it? I'd expect we'll have to expose ctarget info |
| 27 |
> in some way for use conditionals, but would like some feedback on what |
| 28 |
> else may be required. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Well, currently you have to export CTARGET for crossdev, etc, so either |
| 31 |
keep that method, or add something to cvs portage to support |
| 32 |
cross-compiling ? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Thanks, |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Martin Schlemmer |
| 39 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer |
| 40 |
Cape Town, South Africa |
Archives